Examining the prevention approach in National Dementia Plans from European and North American countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: This paper aims to provide a comprehensive review of National Dementia Plans (NDPs) from selected European and North American countries, focusing on the distinct prevention strategies outlined and the approaches employed for reducing dementia risk. Method: The sample consisted of 16 NDPs from Austria, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Spain, Switzerland, the UK, and the USA. These NDPs were retrieved from the Alzheimer's Disease International (ADI) database, with regular updates checked on official governmental websites. A qualitative analysis was conducted to identify common themes related to the vision, goals, and corresponding actions and measures within these strategies. Results: Our analysis revealed that dementia prevention is a strategic goal for most of the countries studied. Common actions identified include the identification of risk factors, advancing research, promoting healthy aging, increasing public awareness, and encouraging lifestyle interventions. Conclusion: We discuss the limitations and challenges of these actions, and more broadly, of the NDPs in relation to the recent literature on the most effective approaches to preventing dementia. We suggest adopting a more "horizontal" approach to dementia prevention, which current NDPs overlook in favor of "vertical" paradigms.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".